Ever wonder what they really think? Get ready fence sitters we are about to embark on another journey together. Here is the first installment.

Quote:

"One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,but it's just as bad not to say it."- Jacques Cousteau,UNESCO Courier

Eliminate 350,000 people a day. Who's going to decide who lives and who dies? What kind of monster would you have to create to achieve this task? One of the most premier scientists of the 20th Century. I grew up watching this guy on television. Eye opening isn't it fence sitters. You might want to think twice about joining these people, or supporting them on any level. What is under the surface is rarely talked about and isn't pretty. I mean they can get positively ghoulish sometimes. Think about it.

Ever wonder what they really think? Get ready fence sitters we are about to embark on another journey together. Here is the first installment.

Quote:

"One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,but it's just as bad not to say it."- Jacques Cousteau,UNESCO Courier

Eliminate 350,000 people a day. Who's going to decide who lives and who dies? What kind of monster would you have to create to achieve this task? One of the most premier scientists of the 20th Century. I grew up watching this guy on television. Eye opening isn't it fence sitters. You might want to think twice about joining these people, or supporting them on any level. What is under the surface is rarely talked about and isn't pretty. I mean they can get positively ghoulish sometimes. Think about it.

Jacques Cousteau? How many decades back did you have to go to find that statemtent and remove all context and some of the quote?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

"The common enemy of humanity is man.In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All thesedangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only throughchanged attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.The real enemy then, is humanity itself."- Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank,consultants to the United Nations

The common enemy of humanity is man? Think about that statement fence sitters.

"The common enemy of humanity is man.In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All thesedangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only throughchanged attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.The real enemy then, is humanity itself."- Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank,consultants to the United Nations

The common enemy of humanity is man? Think about that statement fence sitters.

Misquoted from this paragraph in a 1993 book:

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." page 75

If this "quote" is so heavily "doctored" how can you trust anything else from this source?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

"We need to get some broad based support,to capture the public's imagination...So we have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified, dramatic statementsand make little mention of any doubts...Each of us has to decide what the right balanceis between being effective and being honest."- Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology,lead author of many IPCC reports

Schneider is in on the ground floor fence sitters. Here you have a guy admitting that the Cultist do not tell the truth for the sake of pushing their agenda. He also admits to "doubts" in the research and theory. Well, we'll just not talk about that. The agenda is what its really about not the theory.

"We need to get some broad based support,to capture the public's imagination...So we have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified, dramatic statementsand make little mention of any doubts...Each of us has to decide what the right balanceis between being effective and being honest."- Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology,lead author of many IPCC reports

Schneider is in on the ground floor fence sitters. Here you have a guy admitting that the Cultist do not tell the truth for the sake of pushing their agenda. He also admits to "doubts" in the research and theory. Well, we'll just not talk about that. The agenda is what its really about not the theory.

Would you trust a scientist who advises his/her colleagues to use scary scenarios to get media attention and to shape public opinion by making intentionally dramatic, overblown statements? Would you have confidence in his or her statements if the scientist said that “each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”? Understandably, you’d probably be suspicious and wonder what was being compromised.

I confess: those were SOME of my words, yet their meaning is completely distorted when viewed out of context like this. You will find hundreds of places — especially on the web sites of industrial or economic growth advocates opposed to global warming policies that might harm their or their clients' interests — in which I am similarly (mis)quoted alongside a declaration that my environmental cronies and I should never be trusted.

I’ll spend a few paragraphs telling you what I really said and why, as I want to illustrate the sorts of pitfalls that will confront a scientist or other expert diving headlong into scientific popularization, media appearances, advocacy, or some combination of these. This example illustrates the risks of stepping from the academic cloister to the wide world out there. A scientist's likelihood of having his/her meaning turned on its head is pretty high — especially with highly politicized topics such as global warming.

First, consider a movie theater marquis selectively quoting a critic as having said a movie was “spectacular,” when the critic might have actually written: “...the film could have been spectacular if only the acting wasn’t so overplayed and the dialog wasn’t so trite…” You get the idea. We see this kind of distortion in sales and advocacy, by citizens and politicians, from businesses and ideologists, in the public and private sectors.

My first experience in being misrepresented in the public debate began after the 1988 heat waves in the US, when global warming made daily headlines. I probably gave twenty interviews a day for several months that year. The global warming debate migrated from the ivy-covered halls of academia into the public policy spotlight via congressional hearings, daily media stories and broadcasts, pressure on the government from environmental groups pushing for control of CO2emissions, and loud and angry denial by industries with high CO2 emissions of both their contribution to global warming and the credibility of the science behind climate change. I was — and still am — quite frustrated about the capricious sound-bite nature of the public debate. Typically, a scientist or other party in the global warming debate is given twenty seconds (maximum) on the evening news for his or her quote, which is supposed to represent either the “catastrophe” or the “no problem” side of the debate, for this is how the media have too often categorized it. If one decides to elaborate on the various complexities associated with the problem, one risks being overlooked or boxed in.

I expressed my frustration to Jonathan Schell, a Pulitzer-prize-winning writer doing a story on the contentious climate debate for Discover magazine. I guess my first mistake was to be a bit tongue-in-cheek — I painted a stark picture of the opposing viewpoints in the climate change debate: gloom-and-doom stories from deep ecology groups and others versus pontifications on uncertainties from big industry and others, who used that to argue against preemptive action. I complained that even though I always make a point in my interviews to discuss the wide range of possibilities, from catastrophic to beneficial, media stories rarely convey the entire range. All too often, a scientist's viewpoint is boxed into one extreme or the other. Usually, but not always, I am put in the "it is a big problem" box rather than the "it is too uncertain to do anything" box, even though I acknowledge both perspectives have some plausible arguments. (See the opening paragraph in my review of Lomborg for Scientific American).

I tried to explain to Schell how to be both effective and honest: by using metaphors that simultaneously convey both urgency and uncertainty, and also by producing supporting documents of all types and lengths (see the "scientist popularizer"). Unfortunately, this clarification is absent from the Discover article, and this omission opened the door for fifteen years of subsequent distortions and attacks. Ironically, this is the consummate example of my grievance about problems arising from short reports of long interviews.

Here is the published quote from that interview with Discover, from which selected lines have been used for over a decade as "proof" that I exaggerate environmental threats:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.The Detroit News selectively quoted this passage, already not in full context, in an attack editorial on 22 November 1989:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.The most egregious omission in the Detroit News quotation is of the last line of the Discoverquote, the one about being both honest and effective. The Detroit News clearly misquotes me, presumably since including the addendum would have weakened the effectiveness of their character attack. In response, I prepared a rebuttal containing the full quote and the context of my interview, which actually showed that I disapproved of the sound-bite system and the media's polarization of the climate change debate. (See the Detroit News editorial and my rebuttal).

While the Detroit News readers had an opportunity to see my true intent, albeit a month later, when the rebuttal was published, I simply cannot respond and correct every article misquoting me, as they have proliferated and now number in the hundreds. Despite many attempts on my part — in my books, papers, talks, and other op-eds — to outline my opinions and dispel the media-propagated myths, the distortions continue to this day, even in "respectable" publications like theEconomist, which ran a partial quote (also taken from the Discover article) without even calling me to see if it was valid. (See the quote from the Economist. The 'brave' editor of this attack does not even sign his polemic, but I am told it was Clive Crook.) The most egregious distortion I am aware of was in a 1996 opinion piece by Julian Simon (see also my rebuttal), a business professor at the University of Maryland, in which he not only used an out-of-context quote from theDiscover article to "prove" that I advocate exaggeration in order to get attention, but he alsoinvented a preamble, that I advise people to “stretch the truth,” and he attributed that to me, while (of course) leaving off the last sentence of my actual remark.

Some friends have advised me to file lawsuits against such distortionists engaging in showcase journalism, but as a public figure, I have just learned to deal with character assassination and polemics as part of the "real world" of public policy debate. Moreover, lawyer friends have told me that partial quotes, even those that turn the original meaning of the full quote upside down, are generally protected by the First Amendment. In the face of this no-win scenario, I warn those who venture into this quagmire simply to expect such pitfalls and to prevent them from causing too much discouragement. It is difficult to correct these reporters and other media icons, who are the ones actually stretching the truth, since most people do not check the originals quotes or stories for accuracy or fairness.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Scientist is wrong according to the rest of the scientists and the publications. To use data known to be inaccurate does no good and the divergance between certain tree proxy measurements and instrumental measurements have been well discussed in many many areas, including the publications. The tree proxy and instrumental measurements agree from the late 1800s to ~1950.

The annual growth of trees, as represented by a variety of ring–width, densitometric, or chemical parameters, represents a combined record of different environmental forcings, one of which is climate. Along with climate, relatively large–scale positive growth influences such as hypothesized ‘fertilizationrsquo; due to increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide or various nitrogenous compounds, or possibly deleterious effects of ‘acid rain’ or increased ultra–violet radiation, might all be expected to exert some influence on recent tree growth rates. Inferring the details of past climate variability from tree–ring data remains a largely empirical exercise, but one that goes hand–in–hand with the development of techniques that seek to identify and isolate the confounding influence of local and larger–scale non–climatic factors.

By judicious sampling, and the use of rigorous statistical procedures, dendroclimatology has provided unique insight into the nature of past climate variability, but most significantly at interannual, decadal, and centennial timescales. Here, examples are shown that illustrate the reconstruction of annually resolved patterns of past summer temperature around the Northern Hemisphere, as well as some more localized reconstructions, but ones which span 1000 years or more. These data provide the means of exploring the possible role of different climate forcings; for example, they provide evidence of the large–scale effects of explosive volcanic eruptions on regional and hemispheric temperatures during the last 400 years.

However, a dramatic change in the sensitivity of hemispheric tree–growth to temperature forcing has become apparent during recent decades, and there is additional evidence of major tree–growth (and hence, probably, ecosystem biomass) increases in the northern boreal forests, most clearly over the last century. These possibly anthropogenically related changes in the ecology of tree growth have important implications for modelling future atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Also, where dendroclimatology is concerned to reconstruct longer (increasingly above centennial) temperature histories, such alterations of ‘normal’ (pre–industrial) tree–growth rates and climate–growth relationships must be accounted for in our attempts to translate the evidence of past tree growth changes.

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

Working toward a preconceived notion. The facts don't matter. Like I've said all along.

Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience in Mexico on Wednesday that temperatures in Europe and in Vietnam were “unprecedented” and broke “every record that’s ever been seen.” However, although it was hot that day, he was off the mark.

Speaking at an environmentally-friendly technology event in Mexico City, Kerry said he had just caught a CNN weather report in his hotel and “saw the temperatures around the world right now.”

The majority of people understand this is political and politicians exaggerate. I would classify this as outright uninformed lying. That's why the Cultists are doomed to failure.

Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience in Mexico on Wednesday that temperatures in Europe and in Vietnam were “unprecedented” and broke “every record that’s ever been seen.” However, although it was hot that day, he was off the mark.

Speaking at an environmentally-friendly technology event in Mexico City, Kerry said he had just caught a CNN weather report in his hotel and “saw the temperatures around the world right now.”

The majority of people understand this is political and politicians exaggerate. I would classify this as outright uninformed lying. That's why the Cultists are doomed to failure.

And you are the one here with the most experience at outright uninformed lying, right?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

It’s a daily barrage of headlines, appearing to be aimed at conditioning the public into thinking climate change is an apocalypse just waiting to happen. But a strange thing is happening. Fewer people care.

A recent Gallup poll put ‘climate change’ at number 14 on a list of 15 issues Americans rated in terms of importance.

The economy, federal spending and health care were the real issues keeping our southern neighbours up at night.

Al Gore has made his millions and won a Nobel prize but even he isn’t getting the attention he used to.

Maybe that’s because he sold his Current TV network to the oil-producing kingdom of Qatar. For Gore, cash definitely trumped optics in his deal with state-owned Al Jazeera. People tend to notice high profile acts of apparent hypocrisy.

Bold and font change mine. No text change in story. Al Gore the original Environ-Metal-ist.

Appropriate for Miltie, our troll denialist;Gene Karpinski President, League of Conservation VotersClimate Change Deniers Are Ignoring the Facts and Doubling Down on Their Extreme BeliefsPosted: 05/23/2014 1:14 pm EDT Updated: 05/23/2014 1:59 pm EDT"We are seeing the conversation on climate change shift, as the media has started asking candidates where they stand on this critical issue. The politicians who continue to ignore basic science and deny that climate change is occurring and human activity is a driving force behind it, are beginning to pay a political price. Instead of holding these extreme anti-science positions, it's time for our nation's leaders to wake-up and tackle the challenge of our generation -- the climate crisis."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-karp ... _ref=greenCognitive Dissonance: Why Are We So Complacent in the Face of Climate Change?Elizabeth Peredo Beltran | May 23, 2014 3:23 pm | Comments"We need to connect the dots to realize that climate change is a phenomenon that challenges us to overcome short-term visions and the empty rhetoric of “Mother Earth,” devoid of concrete actions. Climate change is a consequence of the violent exploitation of nature, of endless economic growth systems based on fossil fuel consumption, understood as an irreplaceable condition for human “welfare.” This obsolete idea has been inculcated into our lives on a social, a psychological and on a cultural level.What can we do to finally get on board that the emissions from burning fossil fuels, of large scale cattle exploitation and of deforestation emissions—both in the North and in the South—are destroying our atmosphere? Where are the effective means of caring for the common goods kidnapped by corporations and the global addiction to unlimited growth? How long do we have to wait till the polluters begin to stop poisoning us and prevent worse consequences? When and how will there be compensation for the damage? (almost 71.5 percent of global emissions are from developed countries where only 17.3 percent of the world population reside). What can we do to avoid the likelihood that the so-called “development” of the global South will repeat that same destructive patterns (disguised by the promises of progress and of happiness)?"http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/23/complace ... e-weather/Methane Apocalypse, Everything Else Is A Distraction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMZbvrs51cgSo, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, milt. You are crazy, or undereducated, oblivious, and just in the way of others doing something about the problem by reducing their eco-footprints to 1/20th, living well, sacrificing some, like we did through far sightedness and hard work with caring about future kids.The old Cousteau words were true. Now it is 362 Million must die per year to prevent 400 million dying per year during the 2048 crash. A crash now is most desirable, with a bottleneck and recovery. After a few more years it won't matter whether humans are here or not because the thermageddon mass extinction is ahead probably sooner than we think, but after the human population crash.So here's hoping Cascadia or La Palma hit and collapse the world economy, or Katla does the same thing with a volcanic winter, and crashes the population to very little emissions within 9 years. Or we can set off Yellowstone and save the future of the biosphere but go through a Toba type population bottleneck. Too bad we can't mimic nature with selection where only the ones who can live sustainably, get to live.Business as usual will lead to a Permian type extinction or worse, a Venus Effect. Humans and their progeny will cease to live on this planet forever, along with 10 million other species we take down with us.You, 'milt banana' , and others are trying for that very outcome by your actions, so are hell bound evil troll. I notice you only really saw the last four words. Yes, you milt are bound for a place other than Heaven. Of course, even snowy got education, so people can change.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein